Undersøgelse af mulighed for brug af innovativ evaluering i elfaggruppen på Aarhus Maskinmesterskole
Oversat titel
Study of the possible use of innovative evaluation in the electrical research group at Aarhus School of Marine and Technical Engineering
Forfatter
Moesgaard, Christian
Semester
4. semester
Udgivelsesår
2015
Afleveret
2015-12-17
Antal sider
30
Abstract
Baggrund: Aarhus Maskinmesterskole (Aarhus School of Marine and Technical Engineering) gennemførte en institutionsakkreditering, som ikke førte til akkreditering, bl.a. på grund af kritik af forskningsarbejdet. Ledelsen igangsatte derfor en reform af kvalitetssikringssystemet og et udviklingsprojekt i elfaggruppen for at styrke forskningspraksis og vidensgrundlag. Projektet ledes af gruppens koordinator. Formål: Afhandlingen undersøger det teoretiske grundlag for innovativ evaluering og afprøver metoden i praksis sammen med elfaggruppens medlemmer. Målet er at vurdere, om metoden både kan understøtte udvikling i praksis og levere dokumentation til opfølgning. Samtidig tydeliggøres centrale begreber i forskningsarbejdet. Metode: Undersøgelsen er aktionsforskning med forfatteren som deltager i gruppens daglige arbejde. Der anvendes værktøjer fra innovativ evaluering, og nogle samtaler styres af Karl Tomms spørgsmålstyper (strukturerede spørgsmål, der fremmer refleksion). Det indsamlede materiale sammenholdes med skriftlige kilder: skolens kvalitetssikringssystem, akkrediteringsrapporten samt Danmarks Evalueringsinstituts rapporter om professionshøjskolernes vidensgrundlag. Teori: Den teoretiske ramme er Dinesen & De Wits Innovativ evaluering. Centrale elementer er systemisk tænkning (at se sammenhænge), realistisk evaluering (hvad virker for hvem under hvilke betingelser), interessentanalyse, programteori (hvordan indsatser forventes at skabe resultater) og evalueringskapacitet (kompetencer og kultur til at evaluere). Konklusion: Innovativ evaluering er ikke en hurtig løsning. Når metoden bruges systematisk, engagerer den praktikere, udvikler praksis og giver solid dokumentation til opfølgning. Processerne er dog tidskrævende og kræver dygtige medarbejdere—særligt arbejdet med programteorier—og det kan være svært at få en presset ledelse til at investere i forarbejdet. Hvis skolen havde anvendt innovativ evaluering før akkrediteringen og efterårets evalueringer, kunne forløbene have været bedre: enten ved at udskyde en ikke-parat akkreditering eller ved bedre forberedelse. Undervisernes manglende forståelse for evaluering kunne muligvis være mindsket gennem en mere anerkendende, praksisnær tilgang.
Background: Aarhus School of Marine and Technical Engineering completed an institutional accreditation process that did not result in accreditation, partly due to criticism of the research work. Management responded by reforming the quality assurance system and launching a development project in the electrical research group to strengthen research practices and the knowledge base, led by the group coordinator. Purpose: This thesis examines the theoretical foundations of innovative evaluation and tests the methodology in practice with members of the electrical research group. The aim is to assess whether the approach can both support practice development and provide documentation for oversight. It also clarifies key terms used in the research work. Method: The study uses action research, with the author participating in the group’s daily work. Tools from innovative evaluation are applied, and some conversations are guided by Karl Tomm’s question types (structured questioning to promote reflection). The empirical material is compared with written sources: the school’s quality assurance system, the accreditation report, and reports from the Danish Evaluation Institute on the knowledge base of University Colleges. Theory: The theoretical frame is Dinesen & De Wit’s Innovative Evaluation. Key elements include systemic thinking (seeing interconnections), realistic evaluation (what works for whom under what conditions), stakeholder analysis, program theory (how activities are expected to lead to results), and evaluation capacity (the skills and culture needed to evaluate). Conclusion: Innovative evaluation is not a quick fix. Used systematically, it engages practitioners, supports development in practice, and yields robust documentation for follow-up. However, the processes are time-consuming and require skilled staff—especially the work with program theories—and it can be difficult to persuade a pressured management to invest in the preparatory work. If the school had applied innovative evaluation before the accreditation and the autumn evaluations, the processes might have gone better: either by postponing an unready accreditation attempt or by preparing more effectively. Lecturers’ limited understanding of evaluation might have been reduced through a more appreciative, practice-oriented approach.
[Dette resumé er genereret ved hjælp af AI]
Emneord